Available online at https://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.

php/ENGEDU

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris

pISSN 2086-6003│eISSN 2580-1449
Vol 15 (1), 2023

The Implementation Of Brainstorming Method In Teaching

Writing For 9th Grade Students Of SMP Bustanul Ulum
Paguyangan Brebes

Nur Halimatussa’diyah1, Muflihah2

State Islamic University (UIN) Prof. K.H. Saifuddin Zuhri Purwokerto, Indonesia
Email: deachsinaga@gmail.com
mymuflie@gmail.com

Abstract.

Key words: cognitive dimension, formative assessment, Revised Bloom's

Taxonomy.

A. INTRODUCTION
Learning outcomes are always produced in the learning process so that
students are evaluated by their teachers. One of the processes to know the
students’ learning outcomes was done through assessment. According to
(Brown, 2003) through assessment, the teacher can measure the extent to
which students understand and are competent in the material that has been
studied. Based on its time, assessments are divided into two forms namely
summative assessment and formative assessment. Brown (2003), explains that
summative assessment aims to measure or summarize what students
understand and usually occurs at the end of a course or program. Formative
assessments are conducted while students are still learning and are used to
monitor learning progress (Carr, 2011).

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, Vol 15 (1), 2023, 1

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

Tests are a subset of assessment. In Indonesia, the teacher needs to

arrange appropriate questions or test items to measure student competencies
based on the regulations of the Government and the current curriculum called
Kurikulum 2013. Additionally, according to Aliningsih and Sofwan (2015, as
cited in Kusumawanti, W. D., & Bharati, 2018), the assessment procedure
based on the 2013 Curriculum is considered to be an authentic assessment that
involves a comprehensive review of a variety of competences.
To design a test that involves a comprehensive review of a variety of
competences, the teacher can use the levels of the revision of Bloom’s
taxonomy proposed by Anderson & Krathwohl (2001) taxonomy which
divides it into six levels from the lower to the higher levels; remembering,
understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. All of these
levels should be given especially to high school students because their
cognitive abilities are already at that level. According to the cognitive levels
proposed by Piaget in Brown (2007, as cited in Fitri et al., 2019), high school
students belong to the segment of adolescence that should reach the highest
level of cognitive development. It corresponds to the ability of high school
students to achieve the highest level of the taxonomy namely a creating level.
It can therefore be assumed that teachers should provide reading tests at all
question levels from the remembering level to creating level.
In addition, Sudjana (2010, as cited in Sidauruk & Gultom, 2021)
claims that a good test should have a 3:4:3 ratio for simple, middle, and
challenging questions. The simple levels are in the level of Remember and
Understand, the medium levels are in the level of Application and Analysis,
and the challenging levels are in the level of Evaluate and Create. Therefore,
the percentage of questions for each level of the revised Bloom's taxonomy is
as follows: 30% for levels C1 and C2, 40% for levels C3 and C4, and 30% for
levels C5 and C. However, based on the review of some previous research
related to the topic of cognitive dimension of revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
applied in the English test, such in (Wisrance & Semiun, 2020) and (Kamlasi,

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 2

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

2018), the proportion of the LOTS and the HOTS questions are not balance.
Moreover, LOTS was the dominant level that used in the question item.
Based on the background written above, there are two aims of this
research. The first is to find out the most applied cognitive process dimension
of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy that is used in the English formative
assessment for eleventh-grade students of SMA N 1 Bobotsari Purbalingga.
The second is to find out the percentage between LOTS and HOTS questions
in the English formative assessment for eleventh-grade students of SMA N 1
Bobotsari Purbalingga.

B. RESEARCH METHOD
This study focused on document analysis using the descriptive
qualitative method. According to Cresswell (2012, as cited in Purnama, 2022),
qualitative research offers the chance to investigate an issue, acquire a
thorough grasp of the central phenomenon, use text analysis to uncover
descriptions and themes in the data, and evaluate the larger implications of the
findings. The data of this research was collected from the questions of the
English daily test for eleventh-grade students of SMA N 1 Bobotsari
Purbalingga in the first semester of the 2022/2023 academic year given by the
English Teacher. The daily test was given to students online and offline. It
consists of 58 total questions.
The data collection technique in this research was documentation. The
documentation technique is a way to collect data through document analysis.
The document is the record of past events which consisted of scripts, pictures,
or other person’s monumental works (Sugiyono, 2013). This study used
content analysis, which investigates information that has been recorded in text,
media, or physical objects. Then, the data will be analyzed in four steps:
identifying, classifying, calculating, and displaying.

C. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 3

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

Findings
The result of the analysis of the cognitive dimension which has been
applied to the questions items of formative assessment is shown in the table
below:
Table 1. Classification and Frequency of Cognitive Dimension

No. Classification of Cognitive Level Frequency of

Questions Items
1. Remembering (C1) 14
2. Understanding (C2) 19
3. Applying (C3) 9
4. Analyzing (C4) 16
5. Evaluating (C5) 0
6. Creating (C6) 0
Total 58

Based on table 4 there were 14 items of questions in remembering

level (C1), 19 items of questions of understanding level (C2), 9 items of
questions in applying level (C3) and 16 items of total questions in
analyzing level (C4). So the most applied cognitive level in question is the
understanding level (C2) with 19 items of the total questions.

For the remembering level, this stage is included in the small-order

thinking skills and is the lowest and easiest process in the Revised Bloom's
Taxonomy. Memory for retrieving relevant knowledge from long-term
memory is important. Problems at this level include retrieving relevant
knowledge from long-term memory or retrieving information from the text
(Anderson et al., 2001). Understanding involves determining the meaning
of instructional messages, including those presented orally, in writing, and
visually (Anderson et al., 2001). Apply level is a process using a
procedure in a given situation. Student ability was assessed in applying a
procedure to a familiar task and unfamiliar tasks (Anderson et al., 2001).

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 4

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

Analyzing is the first level in the highest level of question. The ability of
the pupils to recognize, isolate, and distinguish the parts or elements of a
fact, concept, opinion, assumption, hypothesis, or conclusion—and then to
investigate each of these parts to determine whether or not a contradiction
exists—is the level of analysis (Anderson et al., 2001). Those levels are
applied in the daily test with different proportion. However, the other two
levels did not included at all in the test, those levels are evaluate level and
create level.

The second research question of this study, to determine the

percentage between LOTS and HOTS on the test, is answered after
identifying the data for each question in the eleventh-grade daily test of
SMA N 1 Bobotsari Purbalingga.

Table 2
Percentage of LOTS and HOTS in English Daily Test for Eleventh-Grade
Students of SMA N 1 Bobotsari

No. Cognitive Level Frequencies Percentage

1. C1 14 24,14%
2. LOTS C2 19 32,76% 72,41%
3. C3 9 15,51%
4. C4 16 27,59%
5. HOTS C5 0 0,00% 27,59%
6. C6 0 0,00%
Total 58 100,00% 100%

Based on (Anderson et al., 2001), three up levels of cognitive

dimension, C6, C5, and C4 (evaluating, creating and analyzing), called
higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). Students are stated to engage in
designing, building, planning, producing, inventing, checking,

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 5

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

hypothesizing, criticizing, experimenting, judging, comparing, organizing,

deconstructing, questioning, and finding at the higher stages of thinking
(HOTS). Then, the three down levels, C3, C2, and C1 (understanding,
remembering, and applying), are called lower-order thinking skills or
ability (LOTS). In lower-order thinking information needs to be recalled
and slightly understood and applied to any real-life examples.
Based on table 2, it is said that the question items with lower-order
thinking skills in the question of daily test for second grade of SMA N 1
Bobotsari are 72,41% or 72%. The number of question items used in
lower-order thinking is 42 question items. The manifestation of higher-
order thinking skills is 16 question items; it reaches 27,59% or 28% out of
100%. It is shown that the percentage in the use of lower-order thinking
skills for the questions in daily assessment for the eleventh grade of SMA
N 1 Bobotsari is higher than the use of higher-order thinking skills. It is
72% of all the question items.

Discussion
According to the analysis performed by the researcher, not all of the
questions on the daily test for SMA N 1 Bobotsari's eleventh grade utilized the
cognitive dimension from the revised Bloom's Taxonomy. The teacher who
composes the test did not spread all the cognitive dimensions for the questions
in the test. However, one other level applied has a different amount to be used.
The most applied cognitive dimension in the test is understanding or C2.
At the understanding level, students should be able to understand if they
can construct the meaning of learning messages both in oral, written, and
graphical form conveyed through teaching, presentation in books, and
presentation through computer screens. Students understand when they
connect the new knowledge they are learning with the knowledge they already

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 6

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

have. The number of question items used understanding is 19 of 58 or 33% of

all the question items.
According to table 2 above, the use of LOTS for the question items in the
daily test for the eleventh grade of SMA N 1 Bobotsari is more significant
than the use of HOTS alone. It is only 28% of the total question items which
were in the HOTS category. However, the use of LOTS received 72% of the
total. By the data shown in the table, the numbers used for LOTS and HOTS
are different. The gap for the total number of LOTS and HOTS in the test is
28 questions. It reveals that most of the questions used are to train students in
recognizing, understanding, and applying the knowledge they previously
learned where these abilities can be categorized at the LOTS level questions
and only 28% of the questions can train students' abilities to think critically, to
think creatively, to be problem solvers, and have a decision maker
competencies where these abilities are classified into HOTS level thinking
abilities.
In addition, even though it has an important part of the 2013 curriculum, in
fact, the implementation of learning using HOTS in Indonesia is still slowly
applied in the teaching and learning process (Arolina, 2021). Furthermore,
(Srihidayanti et al., 2015) claims that some Indonesian teachers struggle to
decide on assessments that are based on suitable core competency, basic
competence, and indicator. However, in this case of giving formative
assessment questions, teachers have managed to show that there is a HOTS-
based learning process integrated into formative assessment questions, even
though the percentage is still below 50%. Referring to the HOTS component
applied to the government's evaluation instrument in the form of the National
Examination; these questions are close to the percentage used by the
government, which is 10% of the total questions used for the national exam.
However, in this case of giving formative assessment questions, teachers
have managed to show that there is a HOTS-based learning process integrated
into formative assessment questions, even though the percentage is still below

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 7

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

50%. Referring to the HOTS component applied to the government's

evaluation instrument in the form of the National Examination, these
questions are close to the percentage used by the government, which is 10% of
the total questions used for the national exam. However, this result did not
fulfill the criteria of a good test proposed by Sudjana (2010) that the cognitive
level should be in 30% of C1 and C2, 40% of C3 and C4, and 30% of C5 and
C6.

D. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Conclusion
Following a review of the English formative assessment in the form of a
daily test for students in the eleventh grade at SMA N 1 Bobotsari based on
the cognitive dimension of Bloom Taxonomy, 58 total questions were used by
an English teacher in the eleventh grade that was created by using various
levels of the cognitive process. The study's findings demonstrated that the test
questions did not cover all cognitive abilities. In the test, only four of the six
levels were present: C1 for remembering, C2 for understanding, C3 for
applying, and C4 for analyzing, which belonged to the HOTS category. The
total number of thinking processes used in the test is as follows there were 42
or 72% of questions in the LOTS category which are divided into 3 levels,
namely remembering 14 questions, or 24,14%, understanding 19 questions, or
32,76%, and applying 9 questions or 15,51% of the total question. While the
HOTS category it only has one level namely analyzing which reach 16
questions or 28% of the total question.
The cognitive level that has been applied in the test is the understanding
level. Meanwhile, two cognitive levels that did not apply in the question were
evaluating level follows by the highest level namely creating level based on
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The percentage between the LOTS category and

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 8

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

the HOTS category was not proportional. The total number of LOTS-based
questions was used higher than HOTS questions. It can be concluded that the
daily test as the student formative assessment for second-grade students of
SMA N 1 Bobotsari was dominated by LOTS questions with understanding
level as the most applied cognitive process dimension based on Revised
Bloom’s Taxonomy. Therefore, the result of this study did not fulfill the
criteria of a good test proposed by Sudjana (2010) that the cognitive level
should be in 30% of C1 and C2, 40% of C3 and C4, and 30% of C5 and C6.

Suggestion
With respects findings, the English teacher is required to add the
frequency of items used to determine the level of application and included the
level of evaluation and creation since students need to be accustomed to
abstract thought rather than concrete one. The questions in the test which still
in the lower order thinking skill (LOTS) should be increased by the English
teachers to the higher order thinking skill (HOTS). In this industry 4.0 era,
Teachers must be able to include HOTS-based questions more than LOTS
questions or at least balance lower-order thinking skills with higher-order
thinking skills while conducting an assessment or test items, especially for
senior high school students.

E. REFERENCES
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer,
R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for
Learning, Teaching, and Assessing : A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. Longman. https://www.pdfdrive.com/a-taxonomy-
for-learning-teaching-and-assessing-a-revision-of-blooms-taxonomy-of-
educational-objectives-d187836328.html

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 9

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

Arolina, R. (2021). Cognitive Dimension Analysis of Examination Preparation in"

Mandiri: Practice Your English Competence" Textbook for 9th Grade of
Junior High School [IAIN PURWOKERTO].
http://repository.iainpurwokerto.ac.id/id/eprint/9610
Brown, H. D. (2003). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices.
Longman. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118533406.ch15
Carr, N. T. (2011). Designing and Analyzing Language Tests. Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000800
Fitri, Y. K., Syarif, H., & Anwar, D. (2019). The Levels of Questions Used on
Reading Test with Regards to Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Ta’dib, 22(1).
Kamlasi, I. (2018). Descriptive Analyses on English Test Items based on the
Application of Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. Metathesis: Journal of English
Language, Literature, and Teaching, 2(2), 203.
https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.v2i2.847
Kusumawanti, W. D., & Bharati, D. A. L. (2018). The effectiveness of close and
explicit reading instructions to enhance reading comprehension to highy and
lowly motivated students. Journal.Unnes.Ac.Id, 8(1), 1–9.
https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/article/view/21995
Purnama, Y. (2022). The Use of Google Translate by Islamic Education
Department Students. International Journal of Social Science, Education …,
1(3), 273–280.
http://sinomicsjournal.com/index.php/SJ/article/view/26%0Ahttp://sinomicsj
ournal.com/index.php/SJ/article/download/26/24
Sidauruk, C. O., & Gultom, J. J. (2021). Cognitive Levels of English Summative
Test of Grade VIII at SMPN 2 Simanindo. October, 44–53.
Srihidayanti, Ma’rufah, D. W., & Jannah, K. (2015). Teachers’ Difficulties in
Lesson Planning: Designing and Implementing. The 62nd TEFLIN
International Conference 2015, 256–265.
http://repository.iainpurwokerto.ac.id/10061/1/536_Srihidayanti_TEACHER
S DIFFICULTIES IN LESSON PLANNING- DESIGNING AND

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 10

 English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, pISSN 2086-6003 │eISSN 2580-1449

IMPLEMENTING.pdf
Sugiyono. (2013). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Wisrance, M. W., & Semiun, T. T. (2020). LOTS and HOTS of Teacher-Made
Test in Junior High School Level in Kefamenanu. Journal of English
Education Vol. 6 No. 2, 68(1), 1–12.

English Education: Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 15 (1), 2023, 11